From Here: http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/44597tempi0401940.asp?DBType=ICOF#i0401940_5
Opponents of research on embryonic cells, including many religious and anti-abortion groups, contend that human embryos deserve special protections against abuse. Many of those opponents believe that life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg. According to those critics, the destruction of an embryo is equivalent to the destruction of a human life. "A human being has an identity at fertilization," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, which lobbied for the congressional ban in 1994. "It doesn't matter if it's done in the womb or a petri dish, it's still killing." [For more information on the debate over when human life begins, see 1999 Abortion: When Does Human Life Begin?]
Anti-abortion groups also oppose research on stemcells derived from fetal tissue. They contend that using aborted fetuses as part of scientific research encourages women to have abortions. If women think that by having an abortion they will contribute to the good of society, critics say, they will view abortion as a more acceptable and legitimate option. Other critics support research on aborted fetuses, since those fetuses are already dead, yet oppose the destruction of embryos, since they consider the embryos to be alive or at least have the potential to become a human being.
Even some groups that do not oppose abortion are uneasy about the prospect of studying tissues derived from aborted fetuses or discarded embryos. For example, the United Methodist church supports women's choice to have abortions, but opposes the research industry's demand for embryos. "There is a difference ethically between a single woman's difficult individual choice and a corporation doing mass experimentation," says J.D. Hanson, a genetic science specialist for the church.
In February 1999, 70 members of the House, led by Dickey, sent a letter to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala protesting the decision to allow federal funds to be used for stem-cell research. The letter stated that funding of stem-cell research would "violate both the letter and the spirit" of the embryo research ban. Seven Republican senators, led by Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), sent a similar letter to Shalala. "The law is clear," Brownback said in a press conference. "We made it clear we were not willing to use tax dollars to destroy human embryos."
According to those who believe embryos are alive, research that destroys human embryos is grossly unethical. Even if such research could lead to viable treatments for diseases, they contend, it cannot be morally justified. "Are we prepared to sacrifice the vulnerable for the potential benefit of the rest of us?" asks former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Frank Young. "The prospect of government-sponsored experiments to manipulate and destroy human embryos should make us all lie awake at night," says Brownback. "That some individuals would be destroyed in the name of medical science constitutes a threat to us all."
Most critics of the embryo research ban contend that week-old blastocysts are not human beings, and that destroying those embryos does not constitute killing. Most scientists argue that an embryo is not a person until it is at least two weeks old, when it develops a so-called primitive streak, the first evidence of a nervous system. At one week, embryos are merely a cluster of cells, critics of the ban contend. When conceived naturally, a blastocyst has not implanted in the uterus by that time.
A number of religious groups support research on embryos. According to Margaret Farley, professor of Christian ethics at Yale University, a growing number of Roman Catholic theologians do not consider an embryo to be a human being at its earliest stages. Many Protestant sects and most Islamic and Jewish theologians also do not consider a young embryo to be a human being.
Critics of the embryo research ban point out that embryos that have been used to derive stemcells would have simply been discarded if they had not been used for research. According to Ruth Macklin, a professor of bioethics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, there are tens of thousands of excess embryos frozen around the U.S. Macklin says it is "self deception to say these are living human beings. These embryos are never going to be implanted." Many backers of embryonic and fetal research compare it to research on donated organs.
Some critics of the embryo research ban point out that funding is already permitted for research on more advanced, aborted fetuses. They question why this work is morally superior to research on primitive, week-old embryos. Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa.) contends that there is "a curious dichotomy or inconsistency when federal funds may be used for fetal tissue research but not for human embryo research."
Advocates of embryo research say that the potential medical benefits of the research outweigh moral concerns about the embryo. "This research is allied with a noble cause," wrote the NBAC in a May 1999 draft of its report on stem-cell research, "and any taint that might attach from the source of the stem cells diminishes in proportion to the potential good which the research may yield." The NIH's Varmus points out that "ethical concerns cut both ways, and ethically we have to be concerned with the health of human beings." It would be unethical, he says, not to conduct stem-cell research.
Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, contends that while embryos do merit protection, the primary concern should be for those who are already alive. "I'm not going to look at a person in a wheelchair and say, 'Sorry, you have to stay in that wheelchair for the rest of your life because of my belief that the frozen embryos in my liquid nitrogen might become life.'"
In order to advocate stem-cell research, more than two dozen patient groups joined together in May 1999 to form the Patients' Coalition for Urgent Research (Patients' Cure). According to Patients' Cure, 74% of Americans support embryonic stem-cell research. The group contends that stem-cell research should proceed "in order to speed the day when millions of sufferers will find relief from the ravages of catastrophic illness and disabilities."
In order to develop those treatments, scientists say, embryos and fetuses must be used. Scientists reject the contention that stemcells derived from adults could perform the same tasks as those derived from embryos or fetuses. Gearhart contends that argument has "no scientific basis."
Critics of the ban on funding say that federal involvement would increase the pool of talented scientists who could study the cells, and thus accelerate the pace of the research. In a letter to Clinton and members of Congress, representatives of 70 organizations, including patients' groups and 36 Nobel laureates, wrote that restricting federal funds for stem-cell research would "close off scientific opportunities to those most qualified to make dramatic advances towards using stemcells for the treatment of disease."
Lifting the ban would also allow the government to gain better oversight of embryonic research. Studies conducted with federal funds are subjected to rigorous peer review and ethical oversight, while private research need not follow such standards. Increasing government oversight would help restrict research that lawmakers find objectionable, such as studies that attempt to create human clones, for example. Critics point out that stem-cell research will continue with or without government funding, and say that the government should regulate that research. "That a sensitive category of research is legal for people who are not publicly accountable, but illegal for those who are accountable is just very strange," says Thomson.
Critics of the ban say that information about advances in stem-cell research should flow freely into the public domain. If such research must be done with private backing, however, findings could be kept secret for greater profit in the private sector. Critics point out that if the government now decides to fund stem-cell research, it will have to pay a premium to the private companies that have patented the technology. "By virtue of its cautious stance in prohibiting embryo research, the federal government has ensured that profit-seeking companies have the rights to what is arguably one of the most important breakthroughs in tissue and aging research in a decade," says Michael Goldman, a biology professor at San Francisco State University in California.
Under current laws, researchers who receive federal funding may obtain patents on cells or other research tools or products. The patent holder could then license the technology to private companies, but the government would retain the right to use the patented cells. When research is conducted with private backing, however, the government has no license on the technology. Private companies could decide for themselves whether, and under what terms, that technology could be used for research or commercial purposes.
Some ethicists oppose the idea that companies should profit from the sale of naturally occurring biological material. They say that allowing private companies to patent and sell promising medical technologies may serve to restrict the use of some treatments to the wealthy. Richard Cole-Turner, chair of the United Church of Christ committee on genetics, warns that banning federal funding could "further privilege the position of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the weak."
Why it's Bad:
- one
- http://find.galegroup.com/ovrc/infomark.do? &contentSet=GSRC &type=retrieve &tabID=T010 &prodId=OVRC &docId=EJ3010192221 &source=gale &srcprod=OVRC &userGroupName=berw2747 &version=1.
- From Here: http://www.2facts.com/ICOF/temp/44597tempi0401940.asp?DBType=ICOF#i0401940_5
Anti-abortion groups also oppose research on stem cells derived from fetal tissue. They contend that using aborted fetuses as part of scientific research encourages women to have abortions. If women think that by having an abortion they will contribute to the good of society, critics say, they will view abortion as a more acceptable and legitimate option. Other critics support research on aborted fetuses, since those fetuses are already dead, yet oppose the destruction of embryos, since they consider the embryos to be alive or at least have the potential to become a human being.Opponents of research on embryonic cells, including many religious and anti-abortion groups, contend that human embryos deserve special protections against abuse. Many of those opponents believe that life starts at the moment of conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg. According to those critics, the destruction of an embryo is equivalent to the destruction of a human life. "A human being has an identity at fertilization," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, which lobbied for the congressional ban in 1994. "It doesn't matter if it's done in the womb or a petri dish, it's still killing." [For more information on the debate over when human life begins, see 1999 Abortion: When Does Human Life Begin?]
Even some groups that do not oppose abortion are uneasy about the prospect of studying tissues derived from aborted fetuses or discarded embryos. For example, the United Methodist church supports women's choice to have abortions, but opposes the research industry's demand for embryos. "There is a difference ethically between a single woman's difficult individual choice and a corporation doing mass experimentation," says J.D. Hanson, a genetic science specialist for the church.
In February 1999, 70 members of the House, led by Dickey, sent a letter to HHS Secretary Donna Shalala protesting the decision to allow federal funds to be used for stem-cell research. The letter stated that funding of stem-cell research would "violate both the letter and the spirit" of the embryo research ban. Seven Republican senators, led by Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), sent a similar letter to Shalala. "The law is clear," Brownback said in a press conference. "We made it clear we were not willing to use tax dollars to destroy human embryos."
According to those who believe embryos are alive, research that destroys human embryos is grossly unethical. Even if such research could lead to viable treatments for diseases, they contend, it cannot be morally justified. "Are we prepared to sacrifice the vulnerable for the potential benefit of the rest of us?" asks former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Frank Young. "The prospect of government-sponsored experiments to manipulate and destroy human embryos should make us all lie awake at night," says Brownback. "That some individuals would be destroyed in the name of medical science constitutes a threat to us all."
Why it's Good:
Most critics of the embryo research ban contend that week-old blastocysts are not human beings, and that destroying those embryos does not constitute killing. Most scientists argue that an embryo is not a person until it is at least two weeks old, when it develops a so-called primitive streak, the first evidence of a nervous system. At one week, embryos are merely a cluster of cells, critics of the ban contend. When conceived naturally, a blastocyst has not implanted in the uterus by that time.
A number of religious groups support research on embryos. According to Margaret Farley, professor of Christian ethics at Yale University, a growing number of Roman Catholic theologians do not consider an embryo to be a human being at its earliest stages. Many Protestant sects and most Islamic and Jewish theologians also do not consider a young embryo to be a human being.
Critics of the embryo research ban point out that embryos that have been used to derive stem cells would have simply been discarded if they had not been used for research. According to Ruth Macklin, a professor of bioethics at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City, there are tens of thousands of excess embryos frozen around the U.S. Macklin says it is "self deception to say these are living human beings. These embryos are never going to be implanted." Many backers of embryonic and fetal research compare it to research on donated organs.
Some critics of the embryo research ban point out that funding is already permitted for research on more advanced, aborted fetuses. They question why this work is morally superior to research on primitive, week-old embryos. Sen. Arlen Specter (R, Pa.) contends that there is "a curious dichotomy or inconsistency when federal funds may be used for fetal tissue research but not for human embryo research."
Advocates of embryo research say that the potential medical benefits of the research outweigh moral concerns about the embryo. "This research is allied with a noble cause," wrote the NBAC in a May 1999 draft of its report on stem-cell research, "and any taint that might attach from the source of the stem cells diminishes in proportion to the potential good which the research may yield." The NIH's Varmus points out that "ethical concerns cut both ways, and ethically we have to be concerned with the health of human beings." It would be unethical, he says, not to conduct stem-cell research.
Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, contends that while embryos do merit protection, the primary concern should be for those who are already alive. "I'm not going to look at a person in a wheelchair and say, 'Sorry, you have to stay in that wheelchair for the rest of your life because of my belief that the frozen embryos in my liquid nitrogen might become life.'"
In order to advocate stem-cell research, more than two dozen patient groups joined together in May 1999 to form the Patients' Coalition for Urgent Research (Patients' Cure). According to Patients' Cure, 74% of Americans support embryonic stem-cell research. The group contends that stem-cell research should proceed "in order to speed the day when millions of sufferers will find relief from the ravages of catastrophic illness and disabilities."
In order to develop those treatments, scientists say, embryos and fetuses must be used. Scientists reject the contention that stem cells derived from adults could perform the same tasks as those derived from embryos or fetuses. Gearhart contends that argument has "no scientific basis."
Critics of the ban on funding say that federal involvement would increase the pool of talented scientists who could study the cells, and thus accelerate the pace of the research. In a letter to Clinton and members of Congress, representatives of 70 organizations, including patients' groups and 36 Nobel laureates, wrote that restricting federal funds for stem-cell research would "close off scientific opportunities to those most qualified to make dramatic advances towards using stem cells for the treatment of disease."
Lifting the ban would also allow the government to gain better oversight of embryonic research. Studies conducted with federal funds are subjected to rigorous peer review and ethical oversight, while private research need not follow such standards. Increasing government oversight would help restrict research that lawmakers find objectionable, such as studies that attempt to create human clones, for example. Critics point out that stem-cell research will continue with or without government funding, and say that the government should regulate that research. "That a sensitive category of research is legal for people who are not publicly accountable, but illegal for those who are accountable is just very strange," says Thomson.
Critics of the ban say that information about advances in stem-cell research should flow freely into the public domain. If such research must be done with private backing, however, findings could be kept secret for greater profit in the private sector. Critics point out that if the government now decides to fund stem-cell research, it will have to pay a premium to the private companies that have patented the technology. "By virtue of its cautious stance in prohibiting embryo research, the federal government has ensured that profit-seeking companies have the rights to what is arguably one of the most important breakthroughs in tissue and aging research in a decade," says Michael Goldman, a biology professor at San Francisco State University in California.
Under current laws, researchers who receive federal funding may obtain patents on cells or other research tools or products. The patent holder could then license the technology to private companies, but the government would retain the right to use the patented cells. When research is conducted with private backing, however, the government has no license on the technology. Private companies could decide for themselves whether, and under what terms, that technology could be used for research or commercial purposes.
Some ethicists oppose the idea that companies should profit from the sale of naturally occurring biological material. They say that allowing private companies to patent and sell promising medical technologies may serve to restrict the use of some treatments to the wealthy. Richard Cole-Turner, chair of the United Church of Christ committee on genetics, warns that banning federal funding could "further privilege the position of the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and the weak."